mhp

Send me an email at my name at my company and I'll keep you updated with what I know.

The issue is communication between the boots on the ground and the NOC. Earlier today, we brought our servers down too. People that stayed up (squarespace) have been up the whole time. Until I understood the whole situation, we made the same choice you did. Now that I know more and I spent the day at the DC, I realized we should get 1-2hr warning before power goes out. Peer1 should be running even after all fuel in the header (shared tank) on 17 runs dry... at least for a little bit. I can't guarantee it, but that's my take on the facts I have at hand (I am President of Fog Creek and spent the day at Peer1 and our office. They are currently using my aquarium pumps to try to pump diesel to the tank on the 17th floor).

I posted it on http://askpatents.com if you'd like to list prior art. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for...

Even an issued patent can still be invalidated. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-patent-h...

It looks like they think Quora is a product of LinkedIn. Judging from the comments here, and from my personal review, the facts of the site seem to be very wrong. However, the design is nice.

Pardon my idiotic question, but why don't they just drive over there and check them out? Or are they just in a totally different place than the rover (like asking why someone in North America can't just hop over and check out Uluru)?

Now we know why they bought FeeFighters!

I don't think it's an extremely small exception. If you have content that could be copyrightable (i.e. classical music, or anything that you've licensed yourself) it will definitely get caught by the automatic filters. Here's dozens of videos in response to a company using the filters fraudulantly http://goo.gl/eI8kj I've done the research and this affects a large percentage of legitimate users (yes, overall its a small percentage of the TOTAL users, but a large percentage of legitimate users who have copyrighted material in their videos).

They should tweak it so there are NO false positives. Maybe they miss a bunch of videos that have to be brought manually to their attention, but then at least the people playing by the rules are not punished.

The majority of copyright usage on Youtube is probably illegal or unsanctioned. Most of the time Youtube is doing the right thing and taking down bad videos.

But for the small number of people who are playing by the rules, and trying to do the thing they have asked us to do, you can't keep making them jump through hoops. They are punishing the good guys!

If your video is totally free, you have a much easier time because you can use vimeo or another video hosting site. If your video is commercial, besides hosting it yourself, there aren't really any other monetization rental strategies beside Youtube.

Google's automatic copyright recognition system is absolute crap. I've spent hours upon hours emailing them different documents showing them that we have the licenses (purchased from the exact company that is claiming infringement through the automatic system) and just get automated responses back. Eventually it gets cleared up, and then 3 months later, the same thing happens again.

Now I've started getting infringement claims against classical music that we are using (that we have also licensed) because a different company owns the license to a different performance of that piece. When I stated we had a license to this piece through another company, it was rejected and the video was removed from monetization. The only way to get out of that black hole was to contact the CEO of the company directly and appeal to him to read the license agreement we had.

I don't have the links handy, but when I started researching this problem (automatic copyright detection and fair use or works in the public domain), I found hundreds of people experiencing the same problem. Google is in a really tough place. Wedged between the typical youtube uploader and the recording and movie industries, this system makes sense. The problem is that all of the well intentioned people are getting swept up in the solution, and now high profile people are showing how broken it is. A system that makes your genuine users frustrated and exasperated does not have a bright future.

Digg.

Why do you say "WILL NOT" in such a definitive way? It doesn't seem like a good bet as a company to rely on your users and the public to forgive you when you step too far, especially if you do it repeatedly.

We'd rather have you tell your friends and colleagues about the product than send us any money at this point. If you get one other person to use it, that would be vastly more valuable to us than a few bucks.

I agree and disagree. I don't think the title is misleading. (in fact, it's a fact!) but your point about engagement is valid.

We track a bunch of other interesting numbers as well, such as number of active users in the last month, number of users with four actions (they actually clicked something) in the last month, number of new boards created in the last day/week, etc.

"Saying "always be free" doesn't create a legal obligation given a change of circumstances."

Neither does charging. Most SAAS products charge on a monthly basis, so the most any vendor owes you is 30 days of usage. Even so, they could always just shut down today and refund you your money.

Not to toot our own horn, but Fog Creek has been around for 12 years, we've been profitable every year along with having dozens of employees. There's little chance that we're about to disappear (or get acquired). We've invested a lot into Trello, and we're not going to change our minds on a whim.

We realize people are running their businesses and adapting their workflows around Trello, and we're encouraging that. Our plan is to give you even more security and more reasons to integrate our product into your business in the future.

So while I can see some merit in arguing that "saying always be free" is just a promise, it's backed by a company that's over a decade old. I don't see any evidence to suggest the scenarios you are describing.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but we have no plans to make a self-hosted version.

I don't think you should let an isolated incident speak for the community as a whole. But your point still stands and it's been repeated often... You felt personally insulted by a moderation action by the community due to the way it was handled. I think most people have been in that situation (I am still upset that the 'programming on a boat' question is gone). My only consolation is that we recognize this is a problem and it is one that almost all online communities face, and we're working on ways to alleviate it. I hope you'll stick around and help us figure out how to do that.

I can confirm that SE Inc. definitely did not pay for this article (or blog post). They called us for some facts, but that was the extent of our involvement as far as I know. I also agree that it seems about two years late and not filled with any new information.

It sounds like you are upset that you put a lot of effort into solving the problem, and also that the question got closed. I can understand how that could be frustrating, but your answer is still there and can still be voted on (only new answers aren't allowed). And to be honest, the question is definitely without a doubt, not on topic to SO. I'm sorry you came away with a bad experience, but just because a questions is closed doesn't mean SO is saying something mean to you personally.

Can you clarify what you are referring to by using the word "This" as the first word of each of your paragraphs? I can't make any connection between your post and the one you are replying to.

I have to admit that after reading the post and not getting any responses to emails or phone calls, and seeing other people experiencing the same thing 3 months after acquisition, we assumed the worst. I'm glad you guys are still working on the product and I hope it survives and becomes something even more powerful.

I can understand it too, and I'm not sure the VC they had behind them were the enlightened kind (like USV, Spark, Andreesen, etc.) so there may have been some pressure from that end as well. But Groupon? That just says acqui-hire to me, and that sucks because they had really built an awesome product that I've used multiple times for multiple companies.

So, I'm with you on the GroupOn Fucker that ruined this. I hope Sean and the gang got handsomely rewarded for their years of work.

I just discovered that FeeFighters got acquired due to this post. I'm so disappointed. This product does not belong at Groupon.

We've been emailing Sean recently to ask him about Samurai and I guess this explains the no response. I really loved what he was doing and sung the FeeFighters praises from the mountaintops whenever I could. I really wish that product had stuck around. All the info that they were producing on their blog was really just gold for businesses. The education they were giving on interchange plus pricing, etc, was really important (but I guess becoming less important now that places like Stripe are hiding all those complications behind their simple pricing).

I was coming here to say the same thing (well same intent) as the original commenter and found your reply useful. It does seem like a fun joke app, and your smart for using that to your advantage. Good job!

Surprising that no one corrected her about "Zuckerberg owning 57% of the company", but I guess it's a) not that important and b) rude to correct the host. (I think he only has about 28% but controls 57% of the voting stock).

Isn't that exactly what Highlight does?

This is exactly what HRBlock and Intuit currently do. They have hooks into all the payroll processors and investment companies and will download your W2s and any 1099s from the relevant company. Then you just answer a bunch of questions.

The problem is that a private company shouldn't have to offer this service. The government should do it for you for free because it helps them get their money faster and easier. However, as the article and others noted, those private companies realize this would be very bad for their business and have lobbied to stop it.

It's the same marketing doublespeak that Salesforce is employing by their slogan "No Software". I have no idea how they can get away with claiming salesforce.com is not software. I don't even know what that means?!

(Note, I understand that they mean to say you don't need to 'install' anything, but to twist that into claiming there is 'no software' is just goofy).

Do they say anywhere whether they mean $1MM in total sales or that they are now doing $1MM per month in sales? Those are two totally different concepts and I'm not sure which hurdle WPEngine has crossed.

Thanks for your comments. The two devs who built the entire site, and pushed for open sourcing it are amazing people, and we're lucky to get to work with them.

We're hiring BTW. Need more Trello devs. Check out our tech stack: http://blog.fogcreek.com/the-trello-tech-stack/ and join us if you find it interesting.

http://www.fogcreek.com/careers.html